SHAH VIJAY CHANDULAL HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

1 The order passed under section 250 dated 06.01.2026 for A.Y 2015-16 upholding addition of Rs.1,27,40,634/- under section 69A is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 2–

2 The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/oe on facts in dismissing the appeal without deciding the appeal on merits.

1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the reopening under section 147 without examining whether there existed tangible material and live nexus between the alleged information and escapement of Income

2 That in the law and/facts, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the reopening under section 147 which was initiated without juri iction.

1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/ on facts in confirming addition under section 69A of Rs.1,21,33,937 despite the appellant having furnished complete documentary evidences including demat statements, contract notes and bank statements establishing genuineness of transaction.

2 The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition under section 69A of Rs.1,21,33,937 without considering the peculiar facts of the case.

3 The Assessing Officer has grievously erred in making the impugned addition without appreciating that the appellant's actual transaction in the scrip of Looks Health Services Ltd. resulted in a Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 18,45,000/- and not in any income or gain of any nature whatsoever. The appellant purchased shares worth Rs.52,25,400/- and sold the same for Rs.33,80,400/-. losing Rs. 18,45,000/ in the process after holding the shares for 3 months.

4 The Assessing Officer has grievously erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,21,33,937/- which represents the total exempt Long Term Capital Gains claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act, when the appellant's actual transaction in the alleged scrip of Looks Health Services Ltd. was a Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 18,45,000/- The addition is thus an exercise of making a totally wrong income taxable in the hands of the appellant, which has no basis in law or fact..

1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and / or on facts in confirming addition of Commission of Rs.6,06,697 on purely presumptive basis without establishing commission was in fact paid by the appellant. that any 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the addition of commission of Rs.6,06,697 without considering the eccentric facts of the case.

1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and / or on facts in not granting cross examination. Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 3–

2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and / or on facts in not supplying the precise material and documents relied upon by him like statements of the searched persons and seized material.

1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and/or in facts in confirming invocation of section 115BBE without examining whether conditions precedent for invoking the said provision were satisfied.

2 The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the invocation of section 115BBE.

1 The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and/or on facts in rejecting the condonation of delay petition without appreciating that the delay was caused due to bona fide reasons entirely beyond the control of the appellant.

2 The learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that all official communications during the assessment proceedings were directed to the email address bhavnarvyas_78@yahoo.co.in, which was under the control of a terminated employee of the appellant group who deliberately withheld the notices from the appellant, thereby depriving the appellant of any opportunity to participate in the assessment proceedings.

On perusal of the record, we find that there was also a delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee did not furnish sufficient cause for condonation of the delay, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as not admitted. We further note that the assessee had not complied even during the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations would be furnished to the Revenue authorities. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for conducting the assessment de novo. However, it would be appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.1,000/- on the assessee which shall be deposited into the “Prime Minister’s Nation Relief Fund”. The receipt of the same shall be Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 4–

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.